FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT APR 12, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 15397 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 6 0 7 6 4 - CV - W PD J O S E P H C . M A G N O T T I , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s SE CR ET ARY FOR THE DEP ARTM ENT O F C O R R E C T I O N S , R e s p o n d e n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A p r i l 12, 2007) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Magnotti raised two sepa rateclaims of inef

fec tive assistanceof trial counse l: (1) counse l 1 faile d tore qu e st j ur

y ins tr uc tio ns on

le sser inc lude d o ff

e ns e s; a nd (2 ) c ouns e l f

aile d toob

je c t to the prosecutor’s improper arguments. The district cour t granted a

COA only

as to Magnotti’s argument that his counsel was ine ffe ctive for failingto reque st jury

instructions on lesser included off

enses. Ac cording ly , Magnotti’s remainingclaim of inef fec tive assistanceis not pre sently be fo rethi s Co ur

t. 2 J os e ph C . M a gnott i , a F l or i da pr i s one rs e r vi ng a 25- y e a rs e nt e nc e f or robb ery, appeal s pro se the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4 h abea s c orpus pe t i t i on. T he A nt i t e rr or i s m a nd E f f e c t i ve D e a th P e na l ty A c tof 1996 (A E D P A ), P u b . L . N o . 1 0 4 -3 2 , 1 1 0 S t at . 1 2 1 4 (1 9 9 6 ), g o v ern s th i s ap p eal b ecau se M a gnott i f

i l e d hi s § 2254 pe t i t i on a f t e rthe e f f e c t i ve da t e of

the A E D P A . T he d i s tr i c tc o u r tg r a n t e d a c e r t i f i c a t e o f ap p e a l a b i l i ty ( “ C OA ” ) a s t o th e f o l l o wi n g two i s s ue s : ( 1) w he the rs uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e s uppor t e d M a gnott i ’ s c onvi c t i on; a nd ( 2) w he the rM a gnott i r e c e i ve d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

hi s tr i a l c ouns e l . F orthe r e a s o n s s e tf

o r th mo r e f

u l l y b e l o w , w e a f

f i r m. M agno tt i fi l ed a 28 U . S . C . § 2 25 4 p et i t i on i n the di stri ctcourtal l egi ng that the evi dence w as i nsuffi ci entt o sup po rthi s c on vi ct i on and t hathe re ce i ved i neff ec t i ve as si st ance of hi s tri al coun se l . W i th regard t o h i s i neff ec t i ve- 1 a s s i s t a nc e - of

- c ouns e l c l a i m , M a gnott i a s s e r t e d tha thi s tr i a l c ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve f orf a i l i ng t o r e que s tj ury i ns truc t i ons on the l e s s e ri nc l ude d of f e ns e s of the f ta nd a tt e m pt e d r obbe ry , a nd f orr e que s t i ng i ns truc t i ons on the l e s s e ri nc l ude d of f e ns e of r obbe ry by s udde n s na t c hi ng, w he r e the e vi de nc e s uppor t i ng the r obbe ry c ha r ge3

w as no tov erw hel m i ng . T he st at e opp osed M agno tt i ’ s § 22 54 pet i t i on and at t ac hed re l evantpo rt i on s of the st at e c ou rtre cord, w hi ch se tforth the fol l ow i ng procedural an d factu al h i st o ry. A tM a gnott i ’ s tr i a l , S a l l y W ood t e s t i f i e d a s the s t a t e ’ s f

i r s tw i tne s s . W ood t e s t i f i e d tha t , on J ul y 13, 2001, s he ha d be e n w or ki ng a s a ba nk t e l l e rf or approx i m at el y one and o ne hal f m on ths. A s partof her tra i ni ng for herbank t el l er j ob, s he w a s i ns truc t e d tha t , i f the ba nk w a s r obbe d, s he s houl d do e xa c t l y w ha tthe r o b b e ra s k e d a n d , a f

te rth e r o b b e ry w a s o v e r , s h e s h o u ld w r ite d o w n a ll th e d e ta ils a nd nott a l k t o a ny one . A tappr oxi m a t e l y 3: 30 on a bus y F r i da y a f t e rnoon a tthe ba nk, W ood c a l l e d the ne xtc us t om e ri n l i ne t o he rw i ndow . M a gnott i w a l ke d up t o W ood’ s w i ndow a nd s a i d, “ [ t ] hi s i s a hol d- up, I w a nty ourhundr e ds , f i f t i e s a nd tw e nt i e s , now . ” M a gnott i di d notdi s pl a y a w e apon. W ood be ga n t o putm one y up o n h e rc o u n te ra n d s h e f e lt “[ e ]x tr e m e ly u p s e t, n e r v o u s , a f r a id .” W o o d s ta te d th a t, because there w as a very thi ck w al l betw ee n h er se l f a nd M agno tt i , she knew that he c oul d notge tt o he r , buttha ts he “ w a s de a thl y a f r a i d. ” W ood the n ga ve M a gnott i the m one y a nd he l e f tthe ba nk. W ood ne xtw e ntt o the ba c k r oom of the b a n k a n d w r o te d o w n h e rd e s c r ip tio n o f M a g n o tti. O n c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, W ood t e s t i f i e d tha ts he di d notthi nk a ny pe r s on coul d g ett o h erthrou gh the gl as s thatse para t ed her f rom the cust om er s a nd that4

M a g n o tti d id n o t y e ll o rm a k e a n y th r e a ts . S h e f u r th e rs ta te d th a t s h e “w a s n o t in f e a rof de a th, but[ s he ] w a s de a thl y s c a r e d, the m e r e f a c tof s om e body c om i ng up an d d em an d i n g m o n ey. ” W o o d st at ed th atsh e k n ew sh e co u l d n o tb e h u rtb ecau se of the w a l l be tw e e n he ra nd M a gnott i . O n r e - di r e c t , W ood t e s t i f i e d tha ts he di d not s e e a w e apon, buttha ts he ha d no i de a w he the rM a gnott i ha d a w e apon ornot . S he f u r th e rs ta te d th a t s h e w a s s c a r e d to d e a th a n d s h e w a s in f e a r . M a gnott i e l e c t e d nott o t e s t i f y i n hi s ow n de f

e ns e , nordi d he pr ovi de a ny de f e ns e w i tne s s e s . M a gnott i m ove d f orj udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l , a r gui ng tha tthe e vi de nc e di d nots uppor tthe c ha r ge of r obbe ry . T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d the m ot i on. M a gnott i ’ s c ouns e l the n r e que s t e d tha tthe c our ti ns truc tthe j ury on the l esser i n cl u d ed o ffen se o f ro b b ery b y su d d en sn at ch i n g , b u td ecl i n ed t o req u est i ns truc t i ons on a ny othe rl e s s e ri nc l ude d of f e ns e s . T he tr i a l c our tne xtga ve the j ury c ha r ge , i ns truc t i ng the j ury tha t , i f i tf ound tha tthe s t a t e ha d notpr ove d the e l e m e nt s of

r obbe ry be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt , tha ti tw oul d ha ve t o de c i de i f the st at e proved t he el em ent s of the l es se r i ncl ud ed offens e of r ob bery by sudd en s na t c hi ng. T he j ury f

ound M a gnott i gui l ty of r obbe ry a s c ha r ge d i n the i n fo rm at i o n . T h ereafter, th e tri al co u rtsen t en ced M ag n o tt i t o 2 5 years’ im p r is o n m e n t. M agno tt i appeal ed hi s c on vi ct i on and sent ence t o the F ou rth D i stri ctC ou rt5

of A ppe a l of

F l or i da , a r gui ng tha tthe tr i a l c our tha d e rr e d i n de ny i ng hi s m ot i ons f o ra c q u itta l a n d a n e w tr ia l o n th e g r o u n d s th a t th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d a t tr ia l d id note s t a bl i s h be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubttha tW ood w oul d ha ve be e n i n f e a rof g r e a t b o d ily in

ju ry o rd e a th , a s w a s r e q u ir e d b y th e r o b b e ry s ta tu te . T h e s ta te ap p e lla te c o u r t a f

f ir m e d M a g n o tti’s c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . I n s o d o in g , th e s ta te courtci t ed F l ori da’ s r ob bery st atut e, F l a. S t at . § 8 12 . 13 (1). T he courtfoun d that the “ f e a r ” c ont e m pl a t e d by the r obbe ry s t a tut e w oul d be e s t a bl i s he d “ i f the c i r c um s t a nc e s a tt e nda ntt o the r obbe ry w e r e s uc h a s t o or di na r i l y i nduc e f e a ri n the m in d o f a r e a s o n a b le p e r s o n ,” r e g a r d le s s o f th e a c tu a l s ta te o f

m in d o f th e v ic tim . T he courtthen con cl ud ed that , i n M agno tt i ’ s c as e, the vi ct i m t es t i fi ed thatshe w as af ra i d and , m oreover, the ci rc um st ance s w er e s uch t hatthe j ury c ou l d con cl ud e that the vi ct i m w ou l d h ave had fea r of dea th o r gre atbo di l y harm because: (1) M agno tt i ’ s use of the ph ra se “ ho l d-up ” c on no t ed a f orci bl e r ob bery ; (2) a n or di na ry pe r s on i n W ood’ s pl a c e w oul d ha ve f e a r e d tha tM a gnott i ha d a w e apon tha the w oul d ha ve us e d t o ge tthe m one y ; a nd ( 3) the gl a s s be tw e e n M a gnott i a nd W o o d w o u ld n o t h av e s u ff iced to re m o v e th e f

ea r o f a n o rd in ar y p er so n in W o o d ’s p o s itio n . T h e c o u r t th e r e a f te rd e n ie d M a g n o tti’s m o tio n f o rr e h e a r in g a n d m a n d a te i ss ued o n M ay 23 , 20 03 . O n S ept em ber 5, 20 03 , the F l ori da S up re m e C ou rt d e c lin e d to e x e r c is e its d is c r e tio n a ry ju r is d ic tio n .6

M a g n o tt i th e n p e t i t i o n e d f o rp o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f p u r s u a n tt o Fl a . R. Cr i m. P. 3. 850, a r gui ng, a m ong othe rthi ngs , tha thi s tr i a l c ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve f or r e q u e s tin g th e ju ry in s tru c tio n o n r o b b e ry b y s u d d e n s n a tc h in g a n d f o rf a ilin g to r e q u e s t ju ry in s tru c tio n s o n th e le s s e rin c lu d e d o f f e n s e o f p e tit th e f

t. T h e s ta te re spon ded t hatM agno tt i had n otdem on stra t ed thathe suff er ed prej ud i ce , as r e qui r e d unde rS tr i c kl a nd v. W a s hi ngt on, 466 U . S . 668, 104 S . C t . 2052, 80 L . E d. 2d 67 4 (19 84 ), because the evi dence overw hel m i ng l y e st abl i shed that M a g n o tti c o m m itte d r o b b e ry a n d , f u r th e r , th a t th e r e w a s n o r e a s o n ab le p r o b a b ility thatthe j ury w ou l d h ave c on vi ct ed hi m of a l es se r off ense . T he st at e c ou rtdeni ed M a g n o tti’s R u le 3 .8 5 0 m o tio n f o rth e r e a s o n s in d ic a te d in th e s ta te ’s r e s p o n s e . M a g n o tti ap p e a le d th e d e n ia l o f h is R u le 3 .8 5 0 m o tio n to th e s ta te ap p e lla te c o u r t, and t he courtdeni ed the m ot i on w i tho utop i ni on . A ft erthe st at e app el l at e c ou rt de ni e d M a gnott i ’ s m ot i ons f orc e r t i f i c a t i on a nd r e he a r i ng, m a nda t e i s s ue d on M a r c h 1 0 , 2 0 0 6 . B as ed u p o n th e a b o v e- d etailed re co rd , th e d istrict co u rt d en ied M ag n o tt i’ s § 2254 pe t i t i on. M a gnott i m ove d f ora C O A , w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d on these tw o i ss ues onl y: (1) w hether there w as suff i ci entevi dence t o sup po rt M a gnott i ’ s r obbe ry c onvi c t i on; a nd ( 2) w he the rM a gnott i ’ s c ouns e l w a s i ne f f e c t i ve f o rf a ilin g to r e q u e s t ju ry in s tru c tio n s o n le s s e rin c lu d e d o f f e n s e s .7

W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntorde ni a l of a § 2254 pe t i t i on de novo, w hi l e the c our t ’ s f

a c tua l f i ndi ngs a r e r e vi e w e d f

orc l e a re rr or . S e e S i m s v. S i ngl e t a ry , 155 F . 3d 1297, 1304 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . M i xe d que s t i ons of l a w a nd f a c t, in c lu d in g in e f

f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l c la im s , a r e r e v ie w e d d e n o v o . I d . A s a m e n d e d b y th e A E D P A , 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) f o rb id s f e d e r a l c o u r ts f r o m g r a n tin g h ab e a s r e lie f o n c la im s th a t w e r e p r e v io u s ly a d ju d ic a te d in s ta te c o u r t, u n le s s th e a d

ju d ic a tio n w a s ( 1 ) “c o n tr a ry to , o rin v o lv e d a n u n r e a s o n a b le appl i ca t i on of, cl ea rl y e st abl i shed fe dera l l aw , as det erm i ned b y the U ni t ed S t at es S u p r e m e C o u r t,” o r( 2 ) “b a s e d o n a n u n r e a s o n a b le d e te r m in a tio n o f th e f a c ts in l i g h to f th e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d i n th e St a t e c o u r tp r o c e e d i n g . ” 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 4 ( d ) . A s ta te c o u r t d e c is io n is “c o n tr a ry to ” c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d f e d e r a l la w if e ith e r“( 1 ) th e s ta te c o u r t ap p lie d a ru le th a t c o n tr a d ic ts th e g o v e rn in g la w s e t f o r th b y S u p r e m e C o u r t c a s e la w , o r( 2 ) w h e n f a c e d w ith m a te r ia lly in d is tin g u is h a b le f a c t s , th e s t a t e c o u r ta rr i v e d a ta r e s u l td i f f e r e n tf r o m th a tr e a c h e d i n a Su p r e me C o u r tc a s e . ” P u tm a n v . He a d , 2 6 8 F . 3 d 1 2 2 3 , 1 2 4 1 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) . An “u n r e a s o n a b le ap p lic a tio n ” o f c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d f

e d e r a l la w m a y o c c u rif th e s ta te c our t“ i de nt i f

i e s the c orr e c tl e ga l rul e f r om S upr e m e C our tc a s e l a w but u n r e a s o n a b l y ap p l i e s th a tru l e t o th e f a c t s o f th e p e t i t i o n e r ’ s c a s e . ” I d . “ An unr e a s ona bl e appl i c a t i on m a y a l s o oc c uri f as t a t e c our tunr e a s ona bl y e xt e nds , or8

u n r e a s o n a b ly d e c lin e s to e x te n d , a le g a l p r in c ip le f r o m S u p r e m e C o u r t c a s e la w to a n e w c o n te x t.” I d . M or e ove r , a s t a t e c our t ’ s f a c tua l f i ndi ngs a r e pr e s um e d c or r e c t , a nd the p e t i t i o n e rc a n r e b u tth e m o n l y b y c l e a ra n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e . Se e 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( 1 ) . A s s u c h , f o ra s ta te c o u r t’s a d

ju d ic a tio n to r e s u lt in a n u n r e a s o n a b le de t e r m i na t i on of

the f a c t s i n l i ghtof

the e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d, “ [ n] otonl y m us tthe f a c tua l de t e r m i na t i on ha ve be e n unr e a s ona bl e , butthe s t a t e c our t ’ s f a c tua l f i ndi ngs m us tbe s how n unr e a s ona bl e by c l e a ra nd c onvi nc i ng e vi de nc e . ” C a l l a ha n v. C a m p b e ll, 4 2 7 F .3 d 8 9 7 , 9 2 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 7 S .C t. 4 2 7 ( 2 0 0 6 ) . A . S u ff i ci en cy of th e E vi d en ce M a gnott i a r gue s on appe a l tha t , pur s ua ntt o the F l or i da r obbe ry s t a tut e a nd ca se l aw ci t ed by the st at e app el l at e c ou rt , the st at e had t o p rove thatW oo d h ad f e a ro f d e a th o rg r e a t b o d ily h a r m f r o m h is a c tio n s . M a g n o tti m a in ta in s th a t a fi nd i ng thata r ea sonabl e per son w ou l d h ave been obj ec t i vel y a fr ai d i s unsup po rt ed by the e vi de nc e be c a us e : ( 1) W ood t e s t i f i e d tha ts he w a s noti n f e a rof de a th or bodi l y ha r m ; ( 2) the r e w a s a s e c ur e ba rr i e rbe tw e e n W ood a nd M a gnott i ; ( 3) the b a n k ’s p r o c e d u r e s r e q u ir e d W o o d n o t to r e s is t M a g n o tti’s d e m a n d s ; ( 4 ) M a g n o tti di d n othave a w eapo n; and (5) M agno tt i di d n otm ake a ny threa t s or l ou d, sudd en m ov em ent s. H e f

urther a rgues thateven a s ubj ec t i ve fe arof death o r bod i l y i nj ury9

w a s notpr e s e nti n hi s c a s e i n l i ghtof W ood’ s t e s t i m ony . H e a l s o a s s e r t s tha tthe st at e c ou rt ’ s r el i ance on ce rt ai n st at e pre ce dentw as cont ra ry t o est abl i shed S u p r e m e C o u r t p r e c e d e n t. I n J a c ks on v. V i r gi ni a , the S upr e m e C our the l d tha t , w he n r e vi e w i ng the s uf f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e , the “ c r i t i c a l i nqui ry ” i s “ w he the r , a f t e rvi e w i ng the evi dence i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the prosecut i on , any r at i on al tri erof fa ct coul d h ave f

ou nd the es se nt i al el em ent s of the cr i m e bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . ” J a c ks on, 443 U . S . a t318- 19, 99 S . C t . a t2788- 89 ( e m pha s i s i n or i gi na l ) . T he S u p r e m e C o u r t n o te d th a t it is th e d u ty o f th e tr ie ro f

f a c t “to r e s o lv e c o n f

lic ts in th e te s tim o n y , to w e ig h th e e v id e n c e , a n d to d r a w r e a s o n a b le in f e r e n c e s f r o m b a s ic f a c ts to u ltim a te f

a c ts ,” a n d a r e v ie w in g c o u r t m a y n o t s u b s titu te its ju d g m e n t a s to w h e th e rit b e lie v e s th e e v id e n c e to b e s u f f ic ie n t to s u s ta in a c o n v ic tio n . I d . In F l o ri d a, th e o ffen se o f ro b b ery i s d efi n ed as: the t a ki ng of

m one y orothe rpr ope r ty w hi c h m a y be the s ubj e c tof l ar ce ny fr om the pers on or cust od y of a no ther, w i th i nt entt o ei ther pe r m a ne nt l y ort e m por a r i l y de pr i ve the pe r s on orthe ow ne rof the m one y orothe rpr ope r ty , w he n i n the c our s e of the t a ki ng the r e i s the use of f orce , vi ol ence , as saul t , or pu tt i ng i n fea r. F la . S ta t. § 8 1 2 .1 3 ( 1 ) . H er e, t o the ext entthatM agno tt i ar gu es thatthe suff i ci ency -of- the-e vi dence s ta n d a r d u s e d b y th e s ta te ap p e lla te c o u r t w a s c o n tr a ry to , o ra n u n r e a s o n a b le10

ap p lic a tio n o f

, c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d f

e d e r a l la w , h is a r g u m e n t is w ith o u t m e r it. I t is n o tew o rth y th at th e s tate co u rt d id n o t cit e J ac k so n in re v iew in g M ag n o tt i’ s s uf f i c i e nc y - of

- the - e vi de nc e c ha l l e nge . N one the l e s s , M a gnott i doe s notpoi ntout any par tof the st at e c ou rt ’ s dec i si on thatw as cont ra ry t o Jac kson , and t he re cord e s tab lis h e s th a t th e s ta te c o u r t c o n s id e r e d th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r a b le t o the st at e, ci t ed the re l evantst at e l aw , and d i d n otre -w ei gh the evi dence. S ee J a c ks on, 443 U . S . a t318- 19, 99 S . C t . a t2788- 89; s e e a l s o E a r l y v. P a c ke r , 537 U . S . 3, 8, 12 3 S . C t . 36 2, 36 5, 15 4 L . E d. 2d 26 3 (20 02 ) ( ho l di ng thata s t at e c ou rt do es no thave t o ci t e t o S up re m e C ou rt“ ca se s–i nd ee d, [§22 54 (d)] do es no teven r e qui r e a w a r e ne s s of

[ i t s ] c a s e s , s o l ong a s ne i the rthe r e a s oni ng northe r e s ul tof the st at e- courtdeci si on cont ra di ct s them ”) . A s t o the que s t i on of

w he the rthe r e w a s s uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o s uppor tthe

“ pu tt i ng i n fea r” el em entof M agno tt i ’ s r ob bery conv i ct i on , the st at e c ou rt de t e r m i ne d tha ti t s pr e c e de ntr e qui r e d a s how i ng tha tthe r obbe ry w oul d ha ve

“ or di na r i l y i nduc e d f

e a ri n the m i nd of

a r e a s ona bl e pe r s on. ” S e e S t a t e v. B a l dw i n, 7 0 9 S o .2 d 6 3 6 , 6 3 7 ( F la . D is t. C t. A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) . A c c o r d in g to B a ld w in , th e s ta te doe s notha ve t o pr ove tha tthe de f e nda nt ’ s c onduc tw a s i t s e l f thr e a t e ni ng or f o r c e f u l, b u t o n ly th a t “th e c o n d u c t w o u ld in d u c e f e a rin th e m in d o f

a r e a s o n a b le pe r s on notw i ths t a ndi ng tha tthe c onduc ti s note xpr e s s l y thr e a t e ni ng. ” B a l dw i n,11

709 S o. 2d a t637- 38. M a gnott i doe s notc ont e nd tha tthe B a l dw i n s t a nda r d i s not the pr ope rs t a nda r d f

orde t e r m i ni ng w he the rhe putW ood i n f e a rdur i ng the in c id e n t. R a th e r , h e a r g u e s th a t th e e v id e n c e e s tab lis h e d th a t W o o d h a d n o f e a r . T he e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d a ttr i a l de m ons tr a t e d tha tM a gnott i w a l ke d i nt o a ba nk, st at ed thati tw as a “ ho l d-up , ” a nd dem anded m on ey . M oreover, W oo d t es t i fi ed tha ts he w a s “ de a thl y a f r a i d” dur i ng the r obbe ry a s s he pl a c e d the m one y on the c o u n te r . S u c h e v id e n c e w a s s u f f ic ie n t to e s tab lis h th a t M a g n o tti’s c o n d u c t w o u ld h av e in d u ce d fe arin th e m in d o f a re as o n ab le p er so n , n o tw ith stan d in g M ag n o tt i’ s a r gum e nttha thi s c onduc tw a s note xpr e s s l y thr e a t e ni ng. S e e B a l dw i n, 709 S o. 2d a t637- 38. T hus , the s t a t e c our t ’ s a na l y s i s w a s notc ontr a ry t o, a nd di d noti nvol ve a n unr e a s ona bl e appl i c a t i on of , c l e a r l y e s t a bl i s he d f

e de r a l l a w . A c c or di ngl y , the d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin d e n y in g M a g n o tti’s § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n a s to h is i n s u f f i c i e n c y - o f

- th e - e v i d e n c e c l a i m.

B . A ss i st an ce of C ou n se l M agno tt i ar gu es thathi s c ou nsel w as defi ci enti n request i ng a j ury i nstruct i on on the offens e of r ob bery by sudd en snat chi ng because thatoffe nse w as nota c tua l l y a l e s s e ri nc l ude d of f e ns e t o r obbe ry a nd, f

ur the r , w a s nots uppor t e d by the evi dence fr om hi s tri al . H e f urther a rgues that , i n l i gh tof the fa ct s of hi s c as e, h is c o u n s e l s h o u ld h a v e r e q u e s te d ju ry in s tru c tio n s o n s im p le th e f t, g r a n d th e f

t,12

a nd a tt e m pt e d r obbe ry . M a gnott i c ont e nds tha thi s c ouns e l ’ s de c i s i on t o not r e que s ti ns truc t i ons on othe rof f e ns e s w a s note nt i t l e d t o de f e r e nc e be c a us e , a s the di s tr i c tc our tnot e d, i tw a s a n i ne xpl i c a bl e de c i s i on. H e a l s o a s s e r t s tha the suff er ed prej ud i ce as a r es ul tof hi s c ou nsel ’ s dec i si on s bec ause the evi dence l ef t th e j u ry w i th n o th i n g t o d eb at e as t o h i s g u i l to n th e ro b b ery ch arg e an d , b ecau se hi s c ouns e l di d notr e que s ti ns truc t i ons on l e s s e ri nc l ude d of f e ns e s , the j ur y ha d no a lte rn a tiv e o f

f e n s e f o rw h ic h to c o n v ic t h im . M a g n o tti la s tly a r g u e s th a t th e s ta te c our ta nd di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n de ny i ng hi s r e que s tf ora n e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng on th e is s u e o f

h is c o u n s e l’s in e f

f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e . T he S i xth A m e ndm e ntpr ovi de s tha ta c r i m i na l de f e nda nts ha l l ha ve the ri gh tt o “ the as si st ance of coun se l for hi s def ense . ” U . S . C on st . am end. V I. W hen a c onvi c t e d de f

e nda ntc l a i m s tha thi s c ouns e l ’ s a s s i s t a nc e w a s i ne f f e c t i ve , the de f e nda ntm us ts how tha t( 1) c ouns e l ’ s pe r f or m a nc e w a s de f

i c i e nt , a nd ( 2) the d e f i c i e n tp e r f

o r ma n c e p r e

j u d i c e d th e d e f

e n s e . Str i c k l a n d , 4 6 6 U . S. a t6 8 7 , 1 0 4 S. C t . a t2064. “ F orpe r f

or m a nc e t o be de f

i c i e nt , i tm us tbe e s t a bl i s he d tha t , i n l i ght of a l l the c i r c um s t a nc e s , c ouns e l ’ s pe r f or m a nc e w a s out s i de the w i de r a nge of pr of e s s i ona l c om pe t e nc e . ” P utm a n, 268 F . 3d a t1243. R e vi e w i ng c our t s m us tbe hi ghl y de f

e r e nt i a l i n r e vi e w i ng a c ouns e l ’ s pe r f or m a nc e , a nd m us tut i l i z e the s tr ong pr e s um pt i on tha tc ouns e l ’ s pe r f or m a nc e w a s r e a s ona bl e . C ha ndl e rv.13

U n i t ed S t at es, 2 1 8 F . 3 d 1 3 0 5 , 1 3 1 4 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ) (en b an c). “ [B ] ecau se coun se l ’ s c on du cti s pre sum ed re as on abl e, for apet i t i on ert o sho w thatthe cond uct w a s u n r e a s o n a b le , a p e titio n e rm u s t e s tab lis h th a t n o c o m p e te n t c o u n s e l w o u ld have t aken the ac t i on thathi s c ou nsel di d t ake. ” I d. at13 15 . U nd erthe prej ud i ce pr ong, the de f

e nda ntm us ts how “ tha tthe r e i s a r e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i ty tha t , butf or coun se l ’ s unp rofe ss i on al errors , the re sul tof the proceedi ng w ou l d h ave been d if f e r e n t.” S tr ic k la n d , 4 6 6 U .S . a t 6 9 4 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 2 0 6 8 . “A r e a s o n a b le p r o b a b ility is a p r o b a b ility s u f

f ic ie n t to u n d e r m in e c o n f id e n c e in th e o u tc o m e .” I d . In M agno tt i ’ s c as e, the st at e c ou rtdeci si on w as no tcont ra ry t o, or an u n r e a s o n a b le ap p lic a tio n o f , c le a r ly e s tab lis h e d f

e d e r a l la w . F ir s t, w h ile th e s ta te c our tde c i s i on de ny i ng M a gnott i ’ s i ne f f e c t i ve - a s s i s t a nc e - of

- c ouns e l c l a i m di d not di r e c t l y c i t e S tr i c kl a nd, the c our tnone the l e s s de ni e d the c l a i m f orthe r e a s ons in d ic a te d in th e s ta te ’s r e s p o n s e to M a g n o tti’s R u le 3 .8 5 0 m o tio n , w h ic h e x p lic itly r e l i e d upon S tr i c kl a nd. T hus , the s t a t e c our tc or r e c t l y i de nt i f i e d S tr i c kl a nd a s the cont rol l i ng l aw and p roperl y app l i ed i tt o M agno tt i ’ s i neff ec t i ve-a ss i st ance -ofc ouns e l c l a i m . S e e R obi ns on v. M oor e , 300 F . 3d 1320, 1343 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( h o ld in g th a t, “[ i]t is w e ll e s tab lis h e d th a t th e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s d e c is io n in S tri ckl and i s the cont rol l i ng l egal autho ri ty t o b e app l i ed t o i neff ec t i ve as si st ance o f c o u n s e l c la im s ” ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) .14

M or e ove r , the s t a t e c our tdi d notunr e a s ona bl y appl y the l a w f r om S tri ckl and t o the fa ct s of M agno tt i ’ s c as e. H er e, the st at e c ou rtand t he di stri ct co u rtd et erm i n ed th atM ag n o tt i fai l ed t o est ab l i sh th ath e su ffered p rej u d i ce as a re sul tof hi s c ou nsel ’ s dec i si on s. A s di sc usse d i n i ss ue on e abo ve, the evi dence p r e s e n t e d a tMa g n o tt i ’ s tr i a l wa s s u f f i c i e n tt o s u s t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n f o rr o b b e ry . As s u c h , e v e n a s s u m in g w ith o u t d e c id in g th a t M a g n o tti’s c o u n s e l w a s d e f ic ie n t in fa i l i ng t o requestj ury i nstruct i on s on o ther l es se r i ncl ud ed offens es , thatdefi ci ency d o e s n o t s u g g e s t th a t th e r e w a s a r e a s o n a b le p r o b a b ility th a t th e o u tc o m e w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if

f e r e n t b e c a u s e th e ju ry h a d s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to f

in d M a g n o tti g u ilty of the great eroffe nse of r ob bery . S ee S tri ckl and, 46 6 U . S . at69 4-94 , 10 4 S . C t . at 20 68 (e xp l ai ni ng thata r evi ew i ng courtshou l d p re sum e thatthe j ury a ct ed a c c or di ng t o l a w ) . T he r e f or e , M a gnott i ’ s a r gum e nt , tha tthe j ur y w oul d ha ve conv i ct ed hi m of a l es se r off ense had i tbeen gi ven the i nstruct i on s on such an offe nse, i s notconcl usi ve w here the j ury properl y c on vi ct ed hi m of robb ery bas ed up on the evi dence pres ent ed attri al . F urtherm ore, the j ury w ou l d h ave perf orm ed i t s dut i e s i n vi ol a t i on of the l a w ha d i tc onvi c t e d M a gnott i of a l e s s e rof

f e ns e i n the fa ce of suff

i ci entevi dence for the great eroffe nse. S ee i d. (hol di ng that“ [a ] defe nd anthas no ent i t l em entt o the l uck o f al aw l es s dec i si on m aker , even i f a l aw l es s dec i si on ca nn otbe re vi ew ed. T he as se ss m entof prej ud i ce shou l d p roce ed15

on the a s s um pt i on tha tthe de c i s i onm a ke ri s r e a s ona bl y , c ons c i e nt i ous l y , a nd i m pa r t i a l l y appl y i ng the s t a nda r ds tha tgove rn the de c i s i on. I ts houl d notde pe nd on the i di osyncr ac i es of the part i cul ardeci si on m aker , such as un usual prop ensi t i es t ow a r d ha r s hne s s orl e ni e nc y ” ) . S i m i l a r l y , M a gnott i ’ s c ouns e l ’ s r e que s tf or i nstruct i on s on the l es se r off ense of robb ery by s ud den snat chi ng di d n otprej ud i ce M a gnott i be c a us e the j ury f ound M a gnott i gui l ty of r obbe ry ba s e d upon s uf f i c i e nt ev id en ce in th e r ec o rd . A cc o rd in g ly, th e d istrict co u rt p ro p er ly d en ied M ag n o tt i’ s § 2 25 4 p et i t i on as t o h i s i neff ec t i ve-a ss i st ance -of- coun se l cl ai m because he f ai l ed t o sh o w th ath e su ffered p rej u d i ce as a resu l to f h i s co u n sel ’ s d eci si o n s. M a gnott i ha s notm e thi s bur de n unde r28 U . S . C . § 2254( d) . I n l i ghtof the f o r e g o in g , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f M a g n o tti’s § 2 2 5 4 p e titio n is AF F I RME D.